It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 unlike other terrorist attacks. Why?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
The true purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that unlikelyhood of terrorists being responsible for 9/11, based on the style of attack they normally adopt.

"Unlikelyhood" and "based upon the style of attack they normally adopt"?!
What kind of terrorist attacks or methods of attacks has Al Qaeda utilized in the past?

Mytym, question: have you looked into the history of Al Qaeda's type or methods for committing terrorists acts up to 9/11? What, exactly, are you implying is not 'their' style or method of attacks? May I remind you that it was Al Qaeda who truck-bombed the WTC in 1993, in their first and unsuccessful attack against the WTC...





seekerof




posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
"Operation 911" obviously needed a great deal of planning and co-ordination.
Time, effort, money and risk of exposure of the true situation to the masses, hence the ensuing and ongoing cover-up.
The perpetrators were successful in getting the whole "War on Terror" ball rolling, galvanizing patriotism and forging popular support for war on what ever country and group is labeled as "terrorists" and "Enemies of Freedom".

Something big was needed to 'Shock and Awe' the masses and kick in the fight/flight instinct. (reaction to fear)

Each suicide bomb that goes off is a reminder to "Keep up the fear, Don't forget the terrorists are still out to get us!"

If things get desperate and people continue to loose faith in the virtues of "War without End" then it may be deemed time by the 911 perpetrators to risk another "Shock and Awe" operation.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
blatantblue:
OK, perhaps there were other multiple attacks, but the method of 4 planes crashing into buildings almost simultaneously, seems very out of character.

Umm, no, what is really "very out of character" here is that there was no four planes "crashing into buildings almost simultaneously," there was three and they did not crash "into buildings almost simultaneously." You need to find a 9/11 timeline and check those times for when the three planes hit thier respective buildings (one hit each tower for two total hitting the WTC and one hit the Pentagon). There was no "almost simultaneously."





I have no doubt that al quaeda are a very smart and calculating group, but an outcome like September 11 takes a lot more than smarts and luck to pull off in my opinion.

How about this then: Smarts, luck, and well-planned and trained coordination?






Never in their wildest dreams could they have ever hoped to completely collapse the two towers with this method.

Never in "their wildest dreams," or never in your wildest dreams?
Apparently, to those who planned and trained for this 9/11 operation, the idea of "never in their wildest dreams" was not in their vocabulary or was relevant to them?






There is much more than meets the eye here as many have already realised.

Your obvious conspiracy theory is, let me guess here.......hmm....hmm........the government did this? Hey, welcome to ATS, you will fit right in among others who feel the same, me not included.







seekerof



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I have to ask this question. Are we sure that it was only 4 planes that were supposed to have been hijacked? Let me explain my reasoning for asking this. I have heard that terrorists in the past have had a problem with the concept of time zones. Were there other hijacking teams in other cities who were to sieze planes that day, but were prevented from doing so by the grounding of all aircraft?

By the way if you know how to set up the autopilot, modern airliners are not that hard to fly. Generally, except for take offs and landings most airliners use the autopilot during the flight.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
i would surmise it did not cost al qaeda much to case, plan, and execute sept 11th.

housing
plane tickets
equipment to case buildings
comm systems

all within the wherewithal of osamas financial standings


and i cant, for the life of me, understand why some of us think coordinated attacks are out of al-qaedas modus operandi

look at the 98 embassy bombings, its been done before


and point, you dont get the point, they are out there to get people, i think bombings in jarkarta, indonesia, spain, england, the US, russia, kenya, tanzania, saudi arabia, jordan, pakistan, turkey,
prove that



mytym, the reason they havent hijacked planes and crashed them since september 11th can be contributed to many things.

1) the current atmosphere, i think they now realize hijacking wont fly anymore. people wont tolerate that # because they know what will happen. this is in addition to air marshals being on flights now. the question is, are they willing to take the chances on the two thjings mentioned above? i certainly wouldnt be
2) its a waiting game. war is a waiting game, you let your enemy let their guard down (i.e. elect hillary) then you come back with double the force.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
blatantblue:
Two points I'd like to raise:
1. All of the other attacks proving Al-Qaeda are out to get people you mention are all bombings and have similarities to one another. None are similar to September 11. This is my point.

2. Why were there no planes crashed into buildings prior to September 11?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
im speaking from the position that al-qaeda committed the september 11th attacks..

first id like to say i dont know why youre surpised
something like D-Day was spectacular in its day

anyway.

youre right, they didnt crash any planes into anything prior to september 11th..
but is that of any importance? absolutely not. heres why:

lets assume they did do it for the sake of time, etc.
the common knowledge is the september 11th attack planning went into motion around 1996. one could explicate from that, that the idea had been around at least a year prior. 1995? so around 95-96 the idea materliazed. this is only a couple years after their first major strike, at the world trade center in 1993. maybe after seeing the failures of the bomb, did they realized they need something better like planes. so planning began in 1996, and culminated in 01. so the concept of flying planes as weapons materliazed not too long after alqaeda really got going. i could see your point if al qaeda had been around 30 years, used bombs, and planes once and never again, but the concept of using planes had developed pretty early on.


www.cbsnews.com...

it is also my suspicion theyve hit planes after september 11th.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
That's a definite possibility, but if they moved to the use of planes as a result of the bombs not providing sufficient results, why would they revert back to an unsatisfactory technique in all future attacks?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
im not so sure they found bombs unsatisfactory

i think what i was trying to say was it was unsatisfactory in doing damage to the world trade center, and they needed something better.

i do think bombs have proven satisfactory in some attacks, and not in others, like the embassy bombings in 98 which killed 500 and the madrid bombings back in 04 which killed 200. the bali bombings in indonesia got about 200 as well
the main reason i dont think they will use planes as a weapon is what i stated before.
they're smart enough to realize people wont fall for that stuff anymore.
standard operation proceedures for hijackings pre 911 was to let the hijackers do what they want, land somewhere, ask demands.
but the standard ops are gone, and they know that, and know people probably wouldnt just sit down while they hijacked the thing.
this has forced them to move to other forms of transport like trains in spain and london

but, that doesnt mean that they still cant blow it up, like the above link provided about russias plane bombings by al-qaeda affiliates



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
and point, you dont get the point, they are out there to get people, i think bombings in jarkarta, indonesia, spain, england, the US, russia, kenya, tanzania, saudi arabia, jordan, pakistan, turkey,
prove that


Some of these bombings are sponsored by various terrorist groups that may or may not be affiliated with one another and others have very strong government or CIA (or equivalent) involvement.
They are out to get people alright but in many cases 'they' are not who you think they are.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
well the attacks in the US, spain, london, kenya, tanzania, the 2003 instanbul bombings in turkey, were perpetrated by alqaeda,

the indonesian attacks were by affiliates like abu sayyaf and jemmah islamiyah.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
all you have to do is say you have a bomb

you now have control of the passengers.


Sorry, but that actually didn't work with Flight 93. They DID say they had a bomb and either landed (I think was just mistaken identity) or flew into the ground after the pasengers rushed them. Still, the bomb theory for the first couple planes would have worked.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that, regardless of the success of the mission, terrorists have not tried to hijack multiple planes simultaneously and crash them into buildings on any other occasion than September 11? It hasn't happened since then and it didn't happen prior to that time. The suicide bomber in a crowded place seems to be the method of choice. I just find it unbelievably perplexing.


Look into Operation Northwoods and other documents from the U.S. government. Now, tell me who was planning "highjacking" airplanes for a terror plot......the U.S. government or Al Queida? At least we know for a FACT that it's been thought about by the U.S. government. And to sit and listen to Condie Rice say that they couldn't even think that a terror strike could come from highjacked planes is just ridiculous and IMO makes me feel she thinks I'm a moron.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
May I remind you that it was Al Qaeda who truck-bombed the WTC in 1993, in their first and unsuccessful attack against the WTC...


Untrue. They tried to blame it on Al Qaaeda but didn't find enough evidence to pin it on them.


Instead of state sponsorship, a large body of evidence indicates that the WTC conspirators were “transnational terrorists”—inspired and assisted by several Islamic militant groups operating in the United States and abroad, but not a formal part of any of them...

In 1995, investigative journalist Steven Emerson noted that federal investigators had identified links between the WTC bombers and at least five Islamic organizations: the Gama al-Islamiya, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Sudanese National Islamic Front, and al-Fuqrah.[6] He observed that these groups work together more closely in diaspora communities outside the Middle East “because they feel they are surrounded by a common enemy: Westerners and their values.”...[7]



Source: cns.miis.edu...

I don't see Al Qeada's name on that list. There are other sources but this is just an initial yahoo search.


[edit on 5/12/2006 by Griff]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
ramzi yousef is khalid sheik mohammeds nephew

he was behind the 1993 wtc

khalid sheik mastermined september 11th



[edit on 12-5-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Just because they are related doesn't automatically pinpoint Al Qeada. With that kind of thinking, we could also say because the editor (?) of (I forget the magazine that did the whole "debunk" of the 9/11 conspiracy theories) is cousins with a spook in Washington, that the magazine is just a propaganda magazine used by the government. Being related to someone does not neccessarily make you an accomplise.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
www.cfr.org...

so ramzi was behind the 1993 WTC, and planned to blow up transpacific flights in 95...for alqaeda.


www.reference.com...

khalid provided wired money, assistance, and advice to the 93 bombers.
khalid mastermined the september 11th attacks.

in addition

abdel rahman, the blink sheik, convicted of involvement with the attacks,
was leader of the group Ja'maat al-islamiyya, a group associated with alqaeda.


so, al qaeda wasnt the huge driving force behind, i will give you that, but they were connected.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Griff:
"Sorry, but that actually didn't work with Flight 93. They DID say they had a bomb and either landed (I think was just mistaken identity) or flew into the ground after the pasengers rushed them. Still, the bomb theory for the first couple planes would have worked. "


it did work with 93, if you subscribe to the story.

they got control of the plane with threats of a bomb.

the threats only became null and void upon the passengers finding out what was going on in new york city. so the threats worked to gain initial control.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Yes, I agree blatant. The bomb threat initially worked. I was just pointing out what you said about the passengers getting wind of WTC and overcoming the highjackers.

As far as 93 bombing. OK...I'll give you that Al-Qaeda was affiliated. But that doesn't mean anything because according to some, Al-Qaeda is also affiliated with the CIA. Does that make the CIA responsible for the 93 bombing of the WTC?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
ok so we can agree about the bomb thing


in what way do you believe the CIA was affiliated with Al-Qaeda

afghanistan?

or something else



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join